Military Review

Not better for yourself, godfather, turn

33
Not better for yourself, godfather, turnThe US military leadership continues to invent and publish in the media the so-called violations by Russia of the provisions of the INF Treaty. Thus, the Washington daily Beast network publication, citing authoritative government experts, said that the Russian side, under the guise of developing an ICBM, is testing medium-range missiles, which are prohibited by the agreement. We are talking about launches of the ICBM RS-12M Topol (SS-25) along the “short” route between the Kapustin Yar and Sary-Shagan polygons, which the Americans qualified as a violation of the INF Treaty. Meanwhile, according to the results of perennial inspections of mobile ground-based missile systems (PGRK) at the US State Department and the Pentagon, they are well aware that products of this type are not medium-range missiles.


In the author’s article “What the hens to consider, to work ...” (“NVO” No. 25, 19.07.13) proved that Russia is responsibly and punctually fulfilling its contractual obligations when developing appropriate types of START. Therefore, the US claims of violations of the INF Treaty by Russia are unfounded. It was also recommended that American experts refer to the basics of strategic missile ballistics and study the dependence of their flight range on the parameters of combat use data entered into the missile control system.

Nevertheless, the Daily Beast, with the suggestion of the same experts, announced that Russia also violated the “Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation,” which has nothing to do with the INF Treaty and missile launches.

In this regard, it seems relevant to analyze the “fresh” violations by the Americans of the INF Treaty and other non-proliferation-disarmament agreements.

VIOLATIONS OF THE AGREEMENT DURING LAUNCHING PROTECTIONS

Clause 5 of Article II of the INF Treaty states: “The term“ medium-range missile ”means a BRNB or RNSD whose range exceeds 1000 kilometers, but does not exceed 5500 kilometers.” The Treaty also noted that "each of the Parties liquidates its medium-range and shorter-range missiles and does not have such means in the future."

Once again, let us recall the opinion of the general designer of the unique Topol, Topol-M, Yars and Bulava-30 submarine-launching systems of academician Yu.S. Solomonov: "The Americans, in violation of the INF Treaty, actually created a medium-range missile for testing." This allowed for about 22 successful interceptor interception and adopting a Standard-3 type anti-missile system. The first stage of the creation of the European missile defense system has been completed and the deployment of the Aegis Eshoer ground control system in Romania has begun.

Unfortunately, Russian officials, various experts and “wise men” do not notice that the Americans are violating the provisions of the INF Treaty when conducting test launches of ground-based interceptor (GBI) missiles designed to intercept strategic missiles in the middle segment of their flight trajectory. It is known that anti-missiles of this type have been adopted and deployed in Alaska and Vandenberg airbase.

At the same time, bypassing the INF Treaty, the American side:

1) develops medium- and intermediate-range target missiles for practicing anti-missile interception tasks;

2) without the consent of the Russian side, introduced the term "intermediate range";

3) did not submit a target missile to the demonstration and display of its distinctive features;

4) did not declare the launch sites of the target rockets;

4) does not transmit notification of the status and movement of target rockets.

Within the framework of the still “old” START-1 Treaty, an undeclared re-equipment of five silo launchers (silo silos) at AvB Vandenberg was carried out and anti-missile anti-missile systems were placed in them, making a similar list of breaches of contractual obligations. Moreover, little is known about the purpose and tactical and technical characteristics of these products. The data on their missile defense treaties are not confirmed, except as spectacular illustrations in the media.

This year, the Russian inspectorate at Avb Vandenberg did not reveal any works on refitting the silos, and the Americans did not show the type of products loaded into the silos.

Conducting undeclared launches of GBI interceptors from silos may create prerequisites for nuclear incidents between the United States, Russia and China. This is explained by the fact that notifications of launches of GBI interceptors in relation to the “Agreement between the USSR and the USA on notifications of launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles and ballistic missiles of submarines from 31 in May 1988 of the year” are not provided. As a result, it is possible to provoke a reciprocal missile strike due to a false classification of the launch of an anti-missile missile system and its incorrect identification in flight, especially in the event of a crisis situation in the world. This is explained by the identity of the sizes of the anti-missile anti-missile systems with ICBMs of the “Minuteman-3” type and the similarity of ICBM warheads and interception stages of anti-missile anti-missiles. Therefore, it is quite difficult to distinguish an attacking ICBM and an “innocuous” antimissile in flight.

In addition, the Avb Vandenberg conducts combat training and test launches of Minuteman-3-type ICBMs with the use of full-time radar missile strike warning and control systems for outer space, control points at various levels, and infrastructure facilities of the ground data network. In addition, there is an insufficient level of professional training of the American SNF specialists and parts of the nuclear support, which in recent years have allowed several nuclear accidents that have received world fame. If necessary, you can also recall the nuclear incidents associated with undeclared missile launches and failures in the US anti-missile defense system.

The authorities of the Russian Federation know that the Americans, as part of the “old” START-1 Treaty, assured the Russian side: test launches of anti-missile missiles will be carried out from the experimental silos. However, these promises are not kept.

General Designer Yuri Solomonov has repeatedly stressed that “despite the fact that theoretically a target missile is a ground-to-air missile, it’s not a problem to modify it to the ground-to-ground class. Because after the active site to fly along a ballistic trajectory to the ground is not difficult. " Of course, such opportunities can also be realized in the anti-missile system of GBI, since its flight range is about 4000 km.

It should also be emphasized that the work of the final stage on the modernization of these antimissiles (by 2016 year) will require the creation of intercontinental target missiles, which will be associated with further violations by the United States of the START Treaty.

VIOLATIONS OF THE STATUS AND OTHER AGREEMENT AGREEMENT

The analysis of foreign information materials revealed new aspects of the violation by the Americans of Article XIII of the START Treaty: “The Parties do not transfer to the third parties strategic offensive weapons falling under the scope of this Agreement ... This provision does not apply to any cooperation practice existing at the time of signing this Agreement, including obligations in the field of strategic offensive arms between one of the parties and a third state. " At the same time, the term “the existing practice of cooperation” and areas of cooperation are not disclosed in the START Treaty. It is also unclear how many “third” countries can be.

The essence of the “fresh” violation of this article is that the Americans carry out the practice of cooperation with the UK that was not announced at the time of signing the START Treaty (8 on April 2010) regarding the preparation and conduct of test-combat launches of the Trident-2 SLBM with US Eastern Missile Range, for which the British SSBN arrives at the site. In recent years, there have been about 15 launches that are qualified as successful. At the same time, the Americans refuse to submit notifications about the upcoming launch, explaining that the UK is not a party to the START Treaty.

According to the results of launches of British (or American) SLBMs, telemetry information is not transmitted to the Russian side, which may mean covertly improving the tactical and technical characteristics of the missile and combat equipment. Also not provided notifications about the storage locations of British and American SLBMs, special identification marks, the location of each of the missiles and other information. However, paragraph 7 of Section II of the Protocol to the Treaty is perplexing: “Notification provided no later than five days after completion of the transfer of SLBMs to a third state or receipt of SLBMs from a third state in accordance with the existing practice of cooperation”. Of course, we are talking about the reception and transmission of American SLBMs between the US Navy and the UK. It is even difficult to imagine that Russia will transfer its SLBMs to a third state - the deficit itself, the YPLY Dolgoruky RPLSN still without missiles. A reasonable question is: why were the RPLNS and the Bulava-30 SLBMs in the START Treaty declared as existing, which made them objects to American inspections?

The content of the following violation of Article XIII lies in the fact that at the time of signing the START Treaty, the Americans did not declare any practice of cooperation in the area of ​​START with their nuclear ally, France, but it does. Thus, information materials show that the United States, in violation of a similar article in the “old” START-1 Treaty, assisted France in the design of ballistic missiles and in ensuring the technical safety of nuclear materials. France, in turn, provided the United States with a variety of information on the results of simulated testing of nuclear warheads for ICBMs. There is a “Memorandum on reaching an agreement” between states on cooperation in the field of ensuring nuclear safety and protecting against unauthorized access. The document has a section on “Monitoring the state of the nuclear arsenal”, which regulates cooperation in the field of theoretical, numerical and experimental methods of modeling, and the section “Nuclear technical safety and protection against unauthorized access”, defines the procedure for the exchange of information on the design of nuclear weapons, research, development , testing, manufacturing, transportation and dismantling of components from nuclear and explosive materials.

Within the framework of the Memorandum, there is also an agreement “Long-term participation of technical personnel in joint projects and mutual visits to facilities”. After the signing of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty (CTBT), the nuclear cooperation of the United States, France, and Great Britain focused on maintaining the combat readiness and reliability of arsenals without conducting full-scale nuclear testing. In 2010, an agreement was signed between France and the UK, which involves the creation of joint radiographic hydrodynamic centers, one in France and one in the UK, necessary for computer simulation of testing nuclear components weaponswhat the US is interested in. In this connection, the tripartite cooperation of the United States with its nuclear allies, which is not declared in the START Treaty, is being developed. In this case, one of the states is an intermediary in the transfer of information between the other two. The question is quite reasonable: when will the US Congress ratify the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty?

The American side is also violating the Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR), carrying out technical cooperation with Japan in creating a national missile defense system. Thus, the joint development of Standard-3 anti-missiles Mod. 2A falls under the restrictions of Category I of this Mode, which prohibits the transfer to other states: missiles with a maximum range of 300 km or more with a payload weight of 500 kg, as well as engines; elements of the control and communication system; software and other technologies. By the way, this anti-missile missile will be deployed in the third stage of the European missile defense system (2018 year) and poses a threat to the Russian strategic nuclear forces. In addition, Russian claims against the Americans, who are assisting Israel in deploying its own missile defense system based on the Arrow-type antimissile system, remain in force.

Thus, the United States itself violates the Hague Code of Conduct on the Prevention of the Proliferation of Ballistic Missiles, the Missile Technology Control Regime and the Agreement between the USSR and the USA on notifications of launches of intercontinental ballistic missiles and submarine ballistic missiles from 31 in May 1988 of the year.

The American leadership continues not to fulfill the provision stated in the preamble to the START Treaty: “... recognizing the relationship between strategic offensive weapons and strategic defensive weapons, the growing importance of this relationship in the process of reducing strategic nuclear weapons and the fact that current strategic defensive weapons do not undermine the viability and effectiveness of START Parties. ” So, the Americans have successfully completed the program of the first stage of creating the EuroMD system; declared their intention to strengthen the defense of the US territory from strikes by ICBMs and SLBMs by deploying more 14 anti-missile missiles and proceeded to the selection of a positional area; carry out the deployment of a ground-based anti-missile complex Standard-3 Mod.1Б in Romania, capable of intercepting Russian ICBMs; they are assisting Japan and Israel in deploying national missile defense systems, as regional missile defense systems aimed primarily against Russia. In connection with the progress of negotiations on the Iranian nuclear program, the leadership of the United States and NATO do not plan to adjust plans to create a European missile defense system. Thus, NATO members have already stated that “the European missile defense system is not aimed at protecting against any particular country. It's about protecting against real and growing threats, but against real threats, we need real defense. ”

It should be noted that the US State Department once again violated the requirements of Section 5 of Article VII of the START Treaty: "Each Party has the right to publicize data on its strategic offensive arms." Thus, on October, the State Department’s website published the combat structure of the Russian strategic nuclear forces: 473 deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and TB; 1400 warheads on deployed ICBMs, SLBMs and TB nuclear warheads; 894 deployed and non-deployed launchers of ICBMs, launchers of SLBMs, deployed and non-deployed TB. By the way, how is the counting rule implemented in the table: for each TB - one warhead and how many TB warheads? Also relevant is the question of the mechanism of transfer of Russian data for inclusion in the certificate of the US State Department.

Further. The United States Party, deploying tactical nuclear weapons (TNW) on the territory of a number of countries that are members of the NATO bloc, violates the first article of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT). As is known, this article introduces a ban for nuclear powers to transfer or provide control of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear states, and the second article of the NPT prohibits non-nuclear powers to acquire and use nuclear weapons.

Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said: “The deployment of tactical nuclear weapons by the United States in non-nuclear countries goes beyond the NPT. Tactical nuclear weapons deployed in Europe can theoretically be delivered to the borders of the Russian Federation in a short time, while Russian non-strategic nuclear weapons cannot be moved to the US border in a short time, and it does not pose a threat to America’s security. Nuclear weapons must be returned to the United States, and the infrastructure must be destroyed. ”

TIME IN ALL OBJECTIVE TO UNDERSTAND

It is important to note that Russian President Vladimir Putin for the first time stated that the INF Treaty does not fully meet the interests of ensuring the military security of the state: “Other states are actively improving medium-range missiles, and almost all of our neighbors are developing these weapon systems around us. At one time, the Soviet Union and, naturally, the Russian Federation abandoned medium-range missiles, signing an agreement with the United States. This is not very clear, since these systems are not relevant at all for the Americans, because they have nowhere to use, and for the Soviet Union and for today's Russia, especially given the fact that our other neighboring countries are developing these attack systems, this solution was at least controversial. "

The head of the presidential administration of the Russian Federation, Sergei Ivanov, stressed: “Americans don’t need this class of weapons at all; they didn’t need it earlier or now. Because with the help of such weapons they can theoretically fight only with Mexico or Canada, and the range of their flight does not allow to hit objects in Europe. ”

The failure of the Russo-American initiative on the globalization of the INF Treaty, which was announced at the 62 session of the UN General Assembly in 2007, is also a matter of concern. This is largely due to the disinterest of the American leadership in promoting the initiative. As a result, the number of countries possessing medium-range missiles is growing, and not a single one of them has expressed a desire to join the Interim INF Treaty.

It appears that this programmatic statement by the President of the Russian Federation and his instructions at a meeting in Sarov allow an objective analysis of the START Treaty to be carried out in order to meet the interests of the military security of the state, since more than two years have passed since its entry into force.

As an example, consider two articles that are detrimental to Russia. Thus, paragraph 7 of Article III reads: “For the purposes of this Treaty: a) a missile of the type created and tested solely for intercepting objects and fighting objects not on the surface of the Earth is not considered as a ballistic missile covered by the provisions of this Treaty” . It must be admitted that the item was creatively written off from the INF Treaty and does not have a direct relationship to the START Treaty. There is no doubt that the Americans will continue to develop medium-range, intermediate and intercontinental target missiles, and the topic of analyzing violations of the INF Treaty and making claims can be closed.

The wording of Article X, paragraph 2, is puzzling: “The obligation not to apply camouflage measures includes the obligation not to apply them at test sites, including measures that conceal ICBMs, SLBMs, ICBM launchers, or the relationship between ICBMs or SLBMs and their launchers during tests” .

Thus, the Russian side is invited not to carry out the operational camouflage measures: during the conduct of combat training (test) launches of new missiles, tests of promising types of combat equipment and missile defense equipment with the submission of telemetric information to Americans; when developing new forms and methods of actions of PGRK Topol, Topol-M and Yars. At the same time, the Americans do not plan to develop new strategic missiles in the near future, except to conduct test launches of the Minuteman-3 type ICBM and the Trident-2 SLBM with the aim of extending their service life. In this regard, the composition and content of telemetric information on the results of launches of the existing type of American missiles are not of particular interest.

It has to be stated that a significant number of restrictive and flawed provisions are in force in the START Treaty, its Protocol and the Appendices, concerning the Russian PGRK, which the Americans do not have. Conclusions from the analysis of their content will be presented in a separate article.
Author:
Originator:
http://nvo.ng.ru/
33 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. AVV
    AVV 14 December 2013 11: 53
    23
    It is generally necessary to withdraw from the agreement on the RMND, since it does not meet the interests of Russia !!! America has withdrawn from the ABM Treaty, so what bothers us ???
    1. Lesnik
      Lesnik 14 December 2013 15: 21
      13
      It is necessary to quietly, calmly build up the country's shock potential wink "the dog barks and the caravan moves on" laughing
      1. A.YARY
        A.YARY 14 December 2013 15: 35
        11
        Apsalyutna saglasen!
        And in general- "He sent our people to the hospital, and we will send his people to the morgue!"
        We were told that NATA will not "develop" to the east.
        Then that the former Soviet republics will not be in NATE.
        ABM is not against us but against Iran. But it is already non-hazardous (and not real).
        And their fleet is not included in the Black Sea?
        And the Georgians who insulted us?
        C-on them and all-nebylo and there will be no p-frames of faith nor a micron!
        GIVE RSMD !!!!
      2. novobranets
        novobranets 14 December 2013 15: 54
        0
        Quote: Forestman
        calmly build up the country's shock potential

        In my opinion, first you need to restore defense ability.
        1. Lesnik
          Lesnik 14 December 2013 15: 59
          +3
          The "defensive" ability is a derivative of the strike (offensive)
          1. novobranets
            novobranets 14 December 2013 16: 07
            0
            I think the opposite. It’s like in boxing, you don’t know how to defend yourself, no attack will help to win.
            1. Geisenberg
              Geisenberg 15 December 2013 17: 17
              0
              Quote: novobranets
              I think the opposite. It’s like in boxing, you don’t know how to defend yourself, no attack will help to win.


              Puncher always has an advantage over a hooker ... if talking about boxing. Translated into Russian - the knockout always wins. So the retaliatory strike must be of such force that the slippers fly off ...
    2. SHILO
      SHILO 14 December 2013 15: 40
      +4
      Quote: AVV
      Well then it bothers us ???


      It hinders that we do not live in the USSR. This is when the party said, and the military-industrial complex under a visor and on a silver platter: Do you want a rocket in the carriage? - you are welcome! Do you want on wheels? - eat to your health! Do you want a "Shuttle" big, big and unmanned? - get it! It is not necessary to remove the signature of the great mind, and then what? (although personally in favor of removing the signature all the same).
      1. A.YARY
        A.YARY 14 December 2013 17: 46
        +5
        Konstantin Kupriyanov is true.
        It interferes that we do not live in the USSR. This is when the party said, and the military-industrial complex under the peak and on a silver platter

        And it does not interfere at the level of opportunity (for now). The state power system itself interferes with, the dominance (complete) of thieving small worthless little people, who call themselves “elite” from the bay-flank, interfere.
        The absence of any, the most lousy ideology interferes, our own unwillingness to act interferes, those who do not speak openly "head-on" and in Russian at public games with the authorities that the system should be changed, indicating the names of the criminals in power.
        The peddlers interfere in politics, the people of the silent majority who are mired in the system "I survive as I can" interfere.
        There are many reasons for this, one recipe. And it was a long time ago, but honestly it will lead to another hole, but it’s fixable by the fact that it’s honest. It’s not a stick with jam and a hole. Not a bright future, but a heavy burden. But otherwise ... ..
        The USSR is not just a good word, but a deed.
    3. Geisenberg
      Geisenberg 15 December 2013 17: 16
      0
      Quote: AVV
      It is generally necessary to withdraw from the agreement on the RMND, since it does not meet the interests of Russia !!! America has withdrawn from the ABM Treaty, so what bothers us ???


      The ABM Treaty should also be withdrawn, preferably earlier than others ... Make a declaration like "they are going to attack" and withdraw from all treaties except those regulating nuclear weapons and ICBMs ... Let's see how then someone will start rushing about ...
    4. Andrey Yuryevich
      Andrey Yuryevich 16 December 2013 06: 26
      +1
      when it comes to life and death, negotiating is the most thankless task, you need to respond to hypocrisy with the same hypocrisy, this is not the case to make yourself "right", EVERYTHING needs to be done, of any range, with any number of separable warheads! we already know what they are worth ...
  2. grandfather
    grandfather 14 December 2013 15: 21
    +8
    it’s time for Russia to hang noodles on the ears of the murderers of Indian civilization yes
  3. pensioner
    pensioner 14 December 2013 15: 26
    +3
    In this regard, it seems relevant to analyze the “fresh” violations by the Americans of the INF Treaty and other non-proliferation-disarmament agreements.
    Right now, the Professor will come and say that everything is going according to plan, and the Americans are furry to the very balls.
    1. novobranets
      novobranets 14 December 2013 15: 57
      +3
      Quote: retired
      Americans are furry on the eggs.

      And what green, slippery and stink, so ate little and often hurt. laughing
      1. pensioner
        pensioner 14 December 2013 16: 05
        +1
        Quote: novobranets
        And what green, slippery and stink, so ate little and often hurt

        laughing good hi
      2. The comment was deleted.
  4. alone
    alone 14 December 2013 15: 57
    0
    The country was ruined by traitors and crooks, they broke everything that could be broken. And now, to withdraw from treaties that have not been executed by anyone for a long time. In the current scenario, starting an arms race means giving oxygen to the Western and American economies, which are going through hard times. But riveting rockets is fraught with consequences for the Russian economy.
    1. Rusich51
      Rusich51 14 December 2013 17: 14
      +1
      Quote: lonely
      . But riveting rockets is fraught with consequences for the Russian economy.

      And where to disappear from ghouls, need makes you spin.
      1. alone
        alone 14 December 2013 18: 06
        0
        it’s necessary to really work for the good of the country, and not to gaggle like some who pretend to work. In the current situation, it’s impossible to throw everything to the mercy and start an arms race. Even the USSR, having great potential for this, could not stand it.
        Usually they step on a rake once.
  5. andrei332809
    andrei332809 14 December 2013 15: 59
    +6
    Yes, it's time to get used to it. Yankees unilaterally violate almost any contract, but require clear execution from others (except Israel). as the Union did not exist, so the Americans forgot about the brakes. Or maybe earlier, with the beginning of perestroika
    1. novobranets
      novobranets 14 December 2013 16: 06
      +7
      Quote: andrei332809
      early, with the beginning of perestroika

      It seems that even earlier. Maybe I have paranoia, but too hunchback was hunchbacked to the benefit of the United States. The Americans were ready in advance for the collapse of the state.
      1. andrei332809
        andrei332809 14 December 2013 16: 12
        +2
        Quote: novobranets
        It seems that even earlier.

        probably not. before the hunchback, our rulers did not think how to sell their country. at least I don’t remember that. and the deeds of the prefabricated do not fit into the framework of betrayal request
        1. novobranets
          novobranets 14 December 2013 16: 13
          +1
          I agree, there were mistakes, miscalculations, but there was no direct betrayal. BUT if I am not mistaken, already at the beginning, God forgive me, perestroika, the United States tried to impose on the USSR amendments to the SALT, in whose favor it is not difficult to guess.
          1. Sterlya
            Sterlya 14 December 2013 17: 45
            +1
            Quote: novobranets
            I agree, there were mistakes, miscalculations, but there was no direct betrayal. BUT if I am not mistaken, already at the beginning, God forgive me, perestroika, the United States tried to impose on the USSR amendments to the SALT, in whose favor it is not difficult to guess.

            the mistake was Humpback himself. nature's mistake laughing and who chose him was a mistake. a series of mistakes. EBN is a big mistake.
            what other mistakes await us?
            1. novobranets
              novobranets 14 December 2013 18: 31
              0
              We have exhausted our quota of errors; you cannot make more mistakes. Too expensive for them to pay.
      2. A.YARY
        A.YARY 14 December 2013 16: 19
        10
        http://bygaga.com.ua/uploads/posts/1370938424_demotivatori_pro_jivotnih-73.jpg
        from such won!
  6. Volodya Sibiryak
    Volodya Sibiryak 14 December 2013 16: 02
    +3
    Here they are hypocritical, unilaterally withdraw from treaties and poke a finger at us, although there were no violations. Looks like they are plotting and to whitewash themselves they raise a squeal. Ugh on them.
    1. novobranets
      novobranets 14 December 2013 16: 10
      +3
      The usual thing. The loudest "stop the thief", shouts the thief himself.
  7. konvalval
    konvalval 14 December 2013 16: 20
    +3
    Immediately abandon everything that Judah the humpbacked prince of darkness signed.
  8. Rus2012
    Rus2012 14 December 2013 16: 27
    +3
    It is necessary to regularly, at the level of the Foreign Ministry, poke the Yankees in their "poop", on every occasion, every single day. And the military - after each incorrectly executed launch of their missile / anti-missile, in response, defiantly clean the snow (sweep the dust) from the cover of our mines and let the duty forces take off YES ... then present an invoice for the burned kerosene ...
  9. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 14 December 2013 16: 34
    +3
    Quote: "... the Americans will continue to develop target missiles of medium, intermediate and intercontinental ranges

    It is interesting to know what is the difference between an ICBM or an RSMD target from a real ICBM? Yes, nothing! Place a warhead on the target and the combat missile is ready. Fool our brother, oh how fool. Knowing the Americans as cynical and unprincipled "partners", the Russian side must draw the appropriate conclusions and begin to create its own "INF targets."
  10. Ivanovich47
    Ivanovich47 14 December 2013 16: 36
    0
    Quote: Ivanovich47
    Quote: "... the Americans will continue to develop target missiles of medium, intermediate and intercontinental ranges
    A popular sign: if the Americans begin to blame Russia for something, then it has long been deceived in the same thing.
    It is interesting to know what is the difference between an ICBM or an RSMD target from a real ICBM? Yes, nothing! Place a warhead on the target and the combat missile is ready. Fool our brother, oh how fool. Knowing the Americans as cynical and unprincipled "partners", the Russian side must draw the appropriate conclusions and begin to create its own "INF targets."
    1. Lesnik
      Lesnik 14 December 2013 16: 39
      -1
      Quote: Ivanovich47
      Quote: Ivanovich47
      Quote: "... the Americans will continue to develop target missiles of medium, intermediate and intercontinental ranges
      A popular sign: if the Americans begin to blame Russia for something, then it has long been deceived in the same thing.
      It is interesting to know what is the difference between an ICBM or an RSMD target from a real ICBM? Yes, nothing! Place a warhead on the target and the combat missile is ready. Fool our brother, oh how fool. Knowing the Americans as cynical and unprincipled "partners", the Russian side must draw the appropriate conclusions and begin to create its own "INF targets."
  11. olegyurjewitch
    olegyurjewitch 14 December 2013 16: 47
    +2
    Yes, you poke them at least where, they have long put everything on the device.
    In spite of it, it’s easy for us to recreate what we, having believed in lovely, smiling partners, destroyed, and what, Training.
  12. Lelek
    Lelek 14 December 2013 18: 00
    +2
    Often we criticize the Chinese, and they are well done - they spit saliva on all the woof-woofs and arm themselves, and technology steals to their advantage. Americans say that priorities are based on fear and strength. So we need to be strong and dangerous. soldier
  13. Sterlya
    Sterlya 14 December 2013 18: 17
    +1
    They just play. with a smile. therefore, they even have a smile on duty on the face glued. And sneeze at them. do what you need and that's it. To put people with the same white teeth, a wider smile. and let them endure their brains.
    I would do that. put people in a couple of hundred of these and let them look for wherever you can get to the bottom of every detail. and sheet music of protest, sheet music. notes. notes. With a demand for clarification, and no lower than the president at least.
    No response received. write in all newspapers wherever possible. in short everything that he writes, says, shows.
    Amers can dig a million, a million.
    Start with freedom of speech. The same Ossetian girl. which my mother just left. hearing not what they wanted. although rather they agreed in advance what they would say. Yes, the girl was smarter than the green democrats. Let them be explained. and do not be stupid went to advertising supposedly. if they say so, show everywhere and write. that’s how the democrats lie. Well, in short, an open field for creativity.
    Drugs in Afghanistan. The same Snowden has not yet been fully disclosed. if about Russia someone who revealed the "democrats" would have already brought the whole world to hysteria. What's wrong?
  14. VadimSt
    VadimSt 14 December 2013 19: 22
    0
    It is not a secret for anyone that all international treaties, during the reign of the "marked by Satan", and even the "simple guy Alconaut", were written practically under the dictation of the "partners".
    It is encouraging that statements such as "We are fulfilling, but this cannot continue indefinitely," comes from the administration of the President of the Russian Federation. I would like the expression “cannot continue” to acquire real prospects, both legally and technically.
  15. Boris55
    Boris55 15 December 2013 09: 27
    -1
    The Americans are convincing us that missile defense in Europe is not against us and is developing it intensively.
    Let us and we will assure them that our medium-range missiles are not against them and will increase their number ... say, on the southern borders of the Kaliningrad region to fight Afghan drug trafficking, so that drugs would not get into poor Europe.
  16. Goldmitro
    Goldmitro 15 December 2013 11: 12
    0
    <<< We have to admit that the START Treaty, the Protocol to it and its Appendices have a significant number of restrictive and flawed provisions concerning Russian PGRK, which the Americans do not have. >>>
    Let the Pentagon continue to try in the media to accuse Russia of violating the INF Treaty, and we will accuse them in the media of violations of this treaty, as well as the START Treaty and other agreements, and in the meantime, we will continue to do what we consider necessary to strengthen our missile nuclear shield! We must catch up, because during the period of almost "fraternization" we lost too much to our "partners" to our own detriment, and they, as usual, did not appreciate this and continue to increase their offensive potential, violating agreements and not paying attention to it!
  17. vvp2412
    vvp2412 15 December 2013 14: 17
    0
    Double standards are the foundation of Western politics!
    We need to send them more often to ... and put BIG and THICK on agreements with the West to the detriment of Russia ...!
  18. jagdpanzer
    jagdpanzer 15 December 2013 17: 26
    0
    I didn’t even get a grasp of it, so it’s clear that they laid big and thick on all these contracts, I don’t understand only why we are shaking over these things and are serving everything .. In my opinion, it’s time to go and wipe more with these little papers.
  19. Vladimir 23rus
    Vladimir 23rus 16 December 2013 02: 05
    0
    HUMPLE TO PUNISH! AND THEN DIGGING AND AGAIN AGAIN. And so with all the followers (present and future) ebna.
  20. kartalovkolya
    kartalovkolya 16 December 2013 09: 55
    0
    What are you talking about, dear colleagues? After all, everything is clear as God's day, it is more expensive to believe the Americans themselves. It is necessary to review all the agreements that infringe on the interests of Russia and get out of them, as the stripes do and let them go on guano, and we will pretend (as they do) that everything is in order and nothing happens. Only traitors could conclude such unprofitable treaties for Russia and it was time to ask them for it (after all, many participants in this disgrace are still being wrested from power)! And those who hold power need to talk less and take concrete decisions that are appropriate to the actions of our opponents !
  21. Alexey K.
    Alexey K. 17 December 2013 09: 35
    0
    Trust such a partner (NATO) - do not respect yourself.